Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 136 (GUJ)

Pratap Malde Modhvadiya v. State of Gujarat

2019-02-15

VIPUL M.PANCHOLI

body2019
JUDGMENT : VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J. 1. Learned advocate for the applicants does not press this application qua applicant No.1. 2. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants-accused has prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. I 68 of 2018 registered with Panchkoshi 'B' Division Police Station, District Jamnagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicants will keep themselves available during the course of investigation, trial also and will not flee from justice. 4. Learned advocate for the applicant on instructions states that the applicants are ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for their remand. He further submits that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicants accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that considering the above facts, the applicants may be granted anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent State has opposed this application and submitted that prior to eight days of the incident, applicant No.2 has made phone call to the deceased. 6. The present application is considered qua applicant No.2 only, as the learned advocate for the applicant does not press this application qua applicant No.1. 7. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offence, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to applicant No.2. 8. This Court has also considered the aspect that the incident is occurred on 03.12.2018 in the morning hours and applicant No.1 has made phone call in the night hours of 02.12.2018. No allegation against applicant No.2 that he has made phone call on 02.12.2018, as result of which, the deceased has committed suicide. 9. 8. This Court has also considered the aspect that the incident is occurred on 03.12.2018 in the morning hours and applicant No.1 has made phone call in the night hours of 02.12.2018. No allegation against applicant No.2 that he has made phone call on 02.12.2018, as result of which, the deceased has committed suicide. 9. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. as reported at, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab as reported at, (1980) 2 SCC 565 . 10. In the result, the present application is partly-allowed. Applicant No.2 is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with a FIR being C.R. No. I 68 of 2018 registered with Panchkoshi 'B' Division Police Station, District Jamnagar, on his executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions: (a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required; (b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 22.02.2019 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.; (c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police; (e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change his residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders; (f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week; and (g) it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he considers it proper and just and the learned Magistrate would decide it on merits; 11. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant. The applicant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicant, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order. 12. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order. 13. Rule is made absolute qua applicant No.2, to the aforesaid extent. Rule is discharged qua applicant No.1. Direct service is permitted.